498 READINGS IN EVOLUTION, GENETICS, AND EUGENICS 
at once that neither Mr. Galton nor any other responsible person has 
ever asserted that we can produce genius at will. The difficulties in 
the way of such a project—at present—are almost innumerable. 
One or two may be cited. 
In the first place, there is the cardinal—but by no means univer- 
sal—difficulty that the genius is too commonly so occupied with the 
development and expansion of his own individuality that he has little 
time or energy for the purposes of the race. ‘This, of course, is an 
example of Spencer’s great generalization as to the antagonism or 
inverse ratio between individuation and genesis. 
Again, there is the generalization of heredity formulated by 
Mr. Galton, and named by him the/aw of regression towards mediocrity. 
It asserts that the children of those who are above or below the mean of 
a race, tend to return towards that mean. The children of the born 
criminal will be probably somewhat less criminal in tendency than he, 
though more criminal than the average citizen. The children of the 
man of genius, if he has any, will probably be nearer mediocrity than 
he, though on the average possessing greater talent than the average 
citizen. It is thus not in the nature of sheer genius to reproduce on its _ 
own level. Itis only the critics who are totally ignorant of the elemen-: 
tary facts of heredity that attribute to the eugenist an expectation of 
which no one knows the absurdity so well as he does. 
On the other hand, it is impossible to question that the hereditary 
transmission of genius or great talent does occur. One may cite at 
random such cases as that of the Bach family, Thomas and Matthew 
Arnold, James and John Stuart Mill; and the reader who is inclined 
to believe that there is no law or likelihood in this matter, must 
certainly make himself acquainted with Mr. Galton’s Hereditary 
Genius, and with such a paper as that which he printed in Sociological 
Papers, 1904, furnishing an “‘index to achievements of near kinsfolk 
of some of the Fellows of the Royal Society.” There is, of course, the 
obvious fallacy involved in the possibility that not heredity but 
environment was really responsible for many of these cases. It must 
have been a great thing to have such a father as James Mill. But it 
would be equally idle to imagine that the evidence can be dismissed 
with this criticism. A Matthew Arnold, a John Stuart Mill, could not 
be manufactured out of any chance material by an ideal education 
continued for a thousand years. 
The transmission of genius.—One single instance of the trans- 
mission of genius or great talent in a family may becited. We shall 
